Prima facie involvement in cheque dishonour complaints is essential before criminal process can be sustained.

Criminal proceedings based on cheque dishonour may be quashed where the complaint materials do not disclose the applicant's prima facie involvement in the alleged offence. The complaint and statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC showed that the grievance was essentially confined to dishonour of a cheque, while the materials did not support the applicant's alleged role in the transaction; the complaint also referred to another person as the bank manager at the relevant time. On that footing, the High Court held that invoking criminal process was unwarranted, the summoning order could not be sustained, and the proceedings were an abuse of process.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint proceedings and summoning order could be quashed where the dispute arising from dishonour of cheque did not disclose the applicant's prima facie involvement in the alleged offences.

Analysis: The complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 showed that the grievance was essentially confined to dishonour of a cheque. The materials did not indicate that the applicant was involved in the alleged transaction in the manner alleged, and the complaint itself referred to another person as the bank manager at the relevant time. In such circumstances, the invocation of criminal process was held to be unwarranted, especially when the grievance, if any, lay in the realm of cheque dishonour.

Conclusion: The proceedings were liable to be quashed against the applicant and the summoning order could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The criminal proceedings and the summoning order were set aside against the applicant for want of prima facie material and for amounting to an abuse of the process of law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the complaint materials do not disclose the applicant's prima facie involvement and the dispute is essentially one of cheque dishonour, criminal proceedings may be quashed as an abuse of process.

---